[2017] KEELC 3111 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to appear and show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. The Memorandum of Appeal, filed in 2009, had never been admitted, and there was no sufficient ground to interfere with the lower court’s decree. Consequently, the court dismissed the suit...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 3111 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Johnson Nkonge O. M’Rucha; Defendant: John Phares Njeru M’Ithara
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 32 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed for want of prosecution and summarily rejected
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeal Admission, Summary Rejection of Appeal, Order 17 Rule 2, Section 79b Civil Procedure Act
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Johnson Nkonge O. M’Rucha
Plaintiff
John Phares Njeru M’Ithara
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 rule 2(1).
- 2 Whether there are sufficient grounds to interfere with the Lower Court’s decree.
- 3 Whether the appeal should be summarily rejected under Section 79B of the Civil Procedure Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to appear and show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. The Memorandum of Appeal, filed in 2009, had never been admitted, and there was no sufficient ground to interfere with the lower court’s decree. Consequently, the court dismissed the suit under Order 17 rule 2(1) and summarily rejected the appeal under Section 79B of the Civil Procedure Act, finding that the requirements for both dismissal and summary rejection were met.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed for want of prosecution and summarily rejected
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- The appeal is summarily rejected under Section 79B of the Civil Procedure Act.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC [CA] CASE NO 32 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC [CA] CASE NO.27 OF 2009
JOHNSON NKONGE O. M’RUCHA………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JOHN PHARES NJERU M’ITHARA….…. DEFENDANT
RULING
1. Parties were to come to court on 6. 4.2017 to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of Order 17 rule 2(1).
2. Only the respondent came to court. He asked the court to dismiss the suit.
3. I find that parties have not shown to the satisfaction of the court why this suit should not be dismissed. The suit merits dismissal for non-prosecution.
4. I note that the Memorandum of Appeal is dated 6th April, 2009 and was filed on the same date. I do also note that the appeal has never been admitted.
5. I have perused the documents apposite to the appeal and I find that there is no sufficient ground to interfere with the Lower Court’s decree. I will summarily reject the appeal.
6. For avoidance of doubt this appeal is dismissed in terms of order 17 Rule 2(1) and the appeal is also summarily rejected in terms of Section 79 B of the Civil Procedure Act.
7. It is so ordered.
Delivered in open court at Chuka this 6th day of April, 2017 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
John Phares Njeru M’Ithara – Respondent
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE